MARANATHA. – Aramaic expression, used by St Paul at the close of I Corinthians (16:22). He does not translate it for his Greek recipients, which suggests that the formula, deriving from the first Palestinian community, must have been in use in the liturgy (like hosanna, amen). Its meaning is disputed today. The ancients understood māran 'āthā' as “our Lord has come,” which must have the sense “he is present among us.” Many modern scholars prefer to read māranā thā'—“Our Lord, come!”—in the sense of Apoc. 22:20 (and Mt. 6:10).
In the uncial codices and in the Armenian and Bohairic versions, m. is written without separation. The later Greek codices and all editions divide it as do the Peshitta and the Vulgate (μαρὰν ἀθά, maran atha).
Chrysostom (PG 61, 377), Theodoret (PG 82, 373), St John Damascene (PG 95, 705), and Theophylact (PG 124, 793) interpreted it as: “The Lord has come.” The hypothesis of G. Bickell, who was the first to read māranā thā' (the imperative thā', in place of the perfect 'athā') (in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theologie, 8 [1884], p. 403), was followed by G. Dalman, Th. Nöldeke, R. Cornely, Ph. Bachmann, H. Lietzmann, F. Gutjahr, C. J. Callan, A. Schweitzer, B. Allo, and J. Huby. The translation “Our Lord is coming” (J. Weiss, L. Toussaint, A. Lemonnier, etc.) is erroneous. Following A. Klostermann, who interpreted it as “Our Lord is the sign ('āthā' = Hebr. 'ōth)”—as a formula used by Christians when exchanging the fraternal kiss—E. Hommel sees in this “sign” the first and last letters ('aleph-tau)
V. ALFA E OMEGA). The Didaché 10:6 also uses m. without translating it, at the end of the Eucharistic prayer, together with ἀμὴν; it is repeated in Const. Apost., VII, 26, 5 with ὡσαννά (ed. F. X. Funk, I, p. 414 ff.).
The certainly Palestinian origin of this liturgical formula demonstrates, contrary to the thesis of W. Heitmüller and W. Bousset, that the application to Jesus of the title “Lord” (Aram. mārē) and “our Lord” (Aram. mārān and māranā') did not begin in the Churches of the Hellenistic world under the influence of the surrounding paganism. The formula m. appears connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, whether it affirms the presence of Jesus or expresses the desire for his return (cf. I Cor. 11:26, and 11:27-32 concerning the anathema).
Because of its proximity to anathema, m. was added to it in order to reinforce it, and from the fourth century onward became a solemn formula of anathema. Ambrosiaster (fourth century) explains anathema m. as follows: “Si quis Dominum Iesum, qui venit, non amat, abscindatur. M. enim 'Dominus venit' significat” (PL 17, 290). A funerary inscription from Salamis, dating from the fourth or fifth century (Corpus inscr. Gr., IV, 9303), pronounces the anathema m. The same is true of the Third Council of Toledo (589), can. 18 (PL 84, 348), and the Fourth Council of Toledo (633), can. 75 (PL 84, 385), where anathema m. is interpreted as “perditio in adventum Domini” (as by Pseudo-Isidore: PL 82, 745, and earlier by St Eucherius: PL 50, 815). In the Middle Ages this dreadful anathema recurs in papal, episcopal, and abbey bulls (Ch. Du Cange, Glossarium med. et inf. lat., IV, Paris 1845, p. 270).